As I was preparing for today’s podcast I came across a page in Religious Truths Defined, by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (the 10th LDS prophet). In this section of the chapter on the nature of the Father he is driving home the importance of the (Mormon) concept that God must have a body. To bolster this point JFS criticized the King James rendering and asserts what he considers to be a correct translation (he calls it an “interpretation” but in light of the use of the term “translation” earlier as well as the nature of the Joseph Smith’s “Inspired Version” it is clear that he means “translation”). Is it any surprise that the King James translators missed an exception to the statement that “no man hath seen God at any time”?
Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Religious Truths Defined, Page 38
The Greek text of this verse has an interesting variant. Prior to the discoveries of P66 and P75 in 1952 the weight of the manuscripts available indicated that the original author had written about an “only begotten Son.” “Only begotten” is a poor rendering of μονογενὴς, as the term means “one and only,” or “unique.” The real word of interest is whether the term which follows μονογενὴς should be θεὸς or υἱὸς, God or Son. P66 (written about 200 AD) and P75 (175-225 AD) both have θεὸς (God) not υἱὸς (Son). Add to that the weight of Codex Siniaticus (א), Codex Vaticanus (B), Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C), and a handful of other manuscripts and you have a very strong case for “the only God” (ESV, for example) being the correct translation.
While there are a larger number of extant manuscripts which contain υἱὸς (Son) this is no good reason side with that translation. The υἱὸς (Son) reading is a distinctly byzantine reading which is found primarily in this text family with a few (late) exceptions (such as miniscule mss 579, an Alexandrian text from approx 1250). Since these texts have been copied from one another and can be traced back to a ‘parent’ text geographically and by textual features which make it distinct from other text families, the large number of manuscripts does not mean it is a better reading.
Below is the textual apparatus from the UBS Greek New Testament, 4th edition:
UBS Greek NT, John 1:18
When you look at the Greek text it is interesting that, while there is a variant with the word “God” there is no variant which introduces an exception clause to tell the reader who can see God. The words in red below represent words in the Joseph Smith Translation which I can not find any textual support for:
And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved. (Joseph Smith Translation, John 1:19 – The verse numbering is not the same as in normal Bibles)
In light of this evidence, I wonder what manuscripts Joseph Smith was using in his New Testament translation? Why are they nowhere to be found today? Why is JFS citing this faulty translation 170 years later to vindicate the current version of Joseph Smith’s 1st vision? Is he, as the LDS Prophet of that time, validating the Joseph Smith Translation? If so, and I ask this again, WHERE IS THE MANUSCRIPT EVIDENCE FOR THE CHANGES IN JOHN 1:18?
